[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: Non-overrideable verbs

- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:34:56 PDT
- From:
- Reply-To:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com

    --- Andrew Ayre wrote:
    On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER wrote:

    > 1) A database transition would, in fact, be neccessary, because verbs
    > are, in LambdaCORE< defined "rw" by default, so new verbs would be
    > defined as non-overridable by default, which is IMHO a bad thing.  I
    > would use 'p' (protected) or 'n' (non-overidable) as the perm for a
    > non-overridable verb, and it has to be on for the verb to be overridable.

    Why not have o for overridable and !o for non-overridable, then the verbs
    would be overidable by default.
    --- end of quoted material ---

    Dealt with even more simply:  in the server, the flag VF_NOT_O is used to
    indicate that the flag is NOT set.

    -manta

- Prev: Re: Non-overrideable verbs
- Next: ongoing listen() probs.
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index